by Marta Moreno Vega (bio), president and founder, The Carribean Cultural Center African Diaspora Institute; adjunct professor, arts and public policy, Tisch School for the Arts, New York University
Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy by Holly Sidford provides the data that most of us knew. Arts funding continues to disproportionately support West European institutions and continues to place the art expressions of the diversity of communities that comprise the nation at the margins. That 2 percent of the arts field receives 55 percent of the funding continues to support the discourse that communities of color and rural communities have set forth for more than 40 years. We didn’t have the exact data, but knew from the annual reports that both public and private foundations favored those organizations that focused on West European arts forms and support their patronizing attempts to diversify their programming excluding the participation of cultural experts of their cultures.
Important for the field is that what we knew is now documented. What the report provides is the platform for change. How this will happen continues to be the challenge. At the center of this inequitable reality is that the organizations that reflect the creative excellence of their communities are at risk of surviving the legacy of underfunding and the present economic crisis. Community cultural organizations are closing or are near to closing their doors and there is little reaction. What to do?
I greatly appreciate that you highlight the loss (or potential loss) of the varied cultural organizations that support the preservation and interpretation of cannons from across the globe as a result of existing funding practices. I have found it fascinating to watch as many members of our funding community have directed funds to struggling institutions that support only Western European cannons on the brink of closing instead. Interestingly enough, no one seems to ask them how it is that with the great access to resources they managed to arrive at a crossroads of bankruptcy and having amassed tremendous amounts of debt.
As our robust conversation continues to grow in momentum, I was happy to see the convergence of several conversations that GIA has pioneered in an article written by the principals of WolfBrown with Joanna Woronkowicz, Is Sustainability Sustainable? We have now moved beyond a shared definition of nonprofit capitalization and understanding of practical applications and approaches to becoming well capitalized. The conversation now goes deeper, towards an understanding of what core drivers support any organization’s long-term viability. That means we must address “relevance” and “relationship” to our core and target audience(s) if we are to successfully “…accumulate the resources for the fulfillment of our mission over time…”
There is now far too much evidence that “…patronizing attempts to diversify [their] programming…” will in the long-term fail to build the necessary relationships and relevance to engage marginalized communities. A wonderful read on practical steps to develop new approaches was given to us by Partners for Livable Communities in their publication titled Culture Connects us All. More of these approaches are being explored by the National Museum of Mexican Art in Chicago and their development of a “Crescendo Cultural.”
I look forward to continuing to unify these three seemingly separate conversations so that we understand that by marginalizing communities through our funding practices we encourage poor engagement practice and as a result may become a driving force in creating dependency and poor capitalization for the organizations/institutions that we are supporting. Audience engagement is also our responsibility as funders if we are to fulfill our own stated missions and accomplish what I heard in one of the excellent GIA sessions this past October: “Think collectively and act independently.” This overarching funding frame can support the development of a robust art sector. One that is reflective, relevant and responsive to changing demographics in our country.
The points you make, Marta, have been so much in my thoughts – first as the director of presenting and artistic communities at the National Endowment for the Arts and now as president and CEO of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters. Having the data to support observations and experiences – something we haven’t done perfectly in the arts world – is extremely helpful. We all know these numbers to be true because we have lived them or witnessed them, but the data helps make it true for funders and others in leadership positions – including those of us who head national organizations and therefore have the obligation to ponder and act upon your final question: “What to do?”